Present at the meeting:
Councillors:
- Councillor Mrs S Dewhurst
- Councillor J Ellis
- Councillor B J Fagan
- Councillor Mrs J Prescott
- Councillor P Thompson
- Councillor F B Walker
Independnet Members:
- Mr G Wood (Chairman)
- Mr R Kidd
- Mr D A Lea
- Mrs P A Wheal
- Mr P G Pennington
Parish Councillors:
- Councillor Mrs M A Thomson (Haigh)
38 Apologies for absence: Councillors C Ready and R Winkworth and Councillor M Crosby (Shevington Parish).
39 Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 November 2008 were approved as a correct record.
40 Exclusion of the public - Section 100a Local Government Act 1972: Resolved: The public is excluded from the meeting when the Committee discusses the following item for the reason set out below:-
| Agenda item no. |
Title of report |
Minute no. |
Description of exempt information by reference to the paragraph number in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 |
| E1 |
Outcome of local investigation SBE21815.08 |
46 |
1 (Information about any named person).
The public interest in making the exception is that the Standards Board itself does not publish the decision as they have not been the subject of a full investigation |
41 Adjudication panel for England/ethical standards officers’ decisions: There were none.
42 Parish issues: There were none.
43 Use of Resources assessment – issues affecting the Standards Committee: The Committee considered a report of the Service Director – Borough Solicitor, that advised Members on the Use of Resources Assessment which would form part of the Council’s Comprehensive Area Appraisal in 2010.
The Committee was advised that the assessment would focus on the importance of having strategic financial management, sound governance and effective financial reporting arrangements. The assessment identified key lines of enquiries (kloe’s) in these areas. Members considered the key lines of enquiries that specifically related to the Standards Committee together with the elements that the Council would be assessed against. The Committee was reminded of the Audit Commission’s previous decision not to improve the Council’s rating unless evidence of sustained improvement could be shown.
The Committee discussed a number of areas where there could be improvements, these included:-
- the submission of an annual report on the work of the Standards Committee to Council;
- publishing an annual reminder to Members of the provisions of the MembersCode of Conduct;
- regular meetings between the Chair of Standards Committee, the Leaders of the political groups and the Chief Executive;
- the arrangement of a joint meeting between the Chairmen of the Standards Committee, Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Audit Governance and Improvement Review Committee to discuss the Council’s ethical framework; and
- the potential for increased use of the Council’s website
The Committee acknowledged that there would be a greater requirement for the Standards Committee to become more outward facing. Particular reference was made to the developing role that partnerships would play in the future and how the Standards Committee would need to interact with this developing role.
Resolved: The Committee:-
- notes the report; and
- requests the Service Director – Borough Solicitor to bring back a further report on these issues to the next meeting.
44 Discussion period for Members to raise issues: Resolved: (1) The Committee requests that the Service Director – Borough Solicitor to develop a protocol to formalise the appointment arrangements for future Assessment and Review Sub Committees.
45 Dates and times of meetings 2009/10: The Committee considered a draft programme of dates and times of meetings of Council and Committee’s for 2009/10. Cabinet at minute 193 had invited comments from the Committees.
Resolved: The Committee endorses the draft programme of dates and times of meetings for 2008/09 now submitted.
46 Outcome of local investigation SBE21815.08: The Committee considered the findings of an investigation in relation to the above mentioned case following a reference from the Standards Board for England. The case related to an allegation that a Member had failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of applications for Brighter Borough Funding and that the Member had used his positition to confer an advantage due to his relationship with a member of the public associated with that applicant.
Prior to the reference for a local investigation by the Standards Board for England, the complaint had been investigated by the Executive Director of Environmental Services and by the Internal Audit section of the Council. While the Council was establishing an internal resource to carry out such investigations, the complainant submitted an objection to a further internal investigation. Following consultation with the Standards Board, the Service Director – Borough Solicitor appointed an external investigator o conduct the investigation.
Following a thorough investigation, the investigator concluded that there had not been a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.
The Committee was advised that it now had to consider the report of the investigator and in considering the report the Local Authorities (Code of Conduct)(Local Determination)(Amendment) Regulations 2004 provided that the Standards Committee may only make one of two findings:-
- That it accepts the finding of no failure to comply with the Code of Conduct; or
- That the matter should be considered at a hearing of the Standards Committee conducted under the Regulations.
Resolved: The Standards Committee:-
- unanimously accepts the finding of no failure to comply with the Code of Conduct;
- instructs the Service Director – Borough Solicitor to notify all parties and to publish the finding as appropriate;
- requests that consideration be given to making provision on the Brighter Borough funding application form for the declaration of personal interests; and
- that relevant guidance be given to Members
(Councillor P Thompson declared a personal and non prejudicial interest in this item as he is cited in the case and a separate complaint has been made against him under a different case.)
